Support NeoGAF

[commedieu]

And this is your only response after I exposed your ignorance?

He isn't the only one in the thread addressing you. You will look like less of a troll if you actually participate in the discussion that you started.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. An eyewitness account is subjective. They could say that they believe Zimmerman transformed into a miniature Godzilla, and that is their eyewitness testimony. They say what they BELIEVE they see/hear, and that is why eyewitness testimony is faulty.

However, there is no CORRECTING witnesses. A police officer simply cannot alter or attempt to influence eyewitness testimony. Nobody can. An officer while taking a statement may attempt to clarify, e.g. "Wait, sir, you said Godzilla, correct? Or did you mean Mothra?" in order to make sure they record the statement correctly.

If she said she heard Trayvon crying, that is her statement. The court proceedings will figure out whether she can truly identify who was crying. Until then, anything else is conjecture.

Seriously how is this up for debate? Cops are not supposed to influence witnesses's statements.

I don't even know what you are arguing anymore.

There is a reason they have witnesses come to trial for examination, because they are trying to find consistency or inconsistency. It doesn't matter what someone saw, they can still be wrong. Eye witness account is not 100% reliable.

how bout the part where you said this





Obviously the eyewitness isn't infallible, but you're saying it's ok to 'correct' other witnesses with your eyewitness however wrong or right he or she may be instead of getting every ones take on the situation and corroborating the information at hand. You don't correct a witness, period. You don't as a police officer take someones testimony and then proceed to tell them what they did or didn't hear.

You don't correct witnesses statements based on what the fuck you were told by other witnesses or the damn suspect. Why are you continuing. I even quoted a damn interview guideline that you conveniently acted like didn't apply to this situation. Oh wait a woman doesn't know a kid crying and a mother certainly can identify her child. What am I thinking.

I think I get your argument (That the witness could not be sure of what they thought they heard), but it is not the job of a person taking a statement to 'correct' it. The statement is the persons statement, not the corrected, sanitised, fact checked position of the person after careful consideration. Well, it could be that, but it doesn't have to be.

and oh yeah,

You don't correct a witnesses statement, there is never a reason to.

(f5 f5 f5...)

 

[MightyHealthy]

1/10

You're clearly trolling at this point

I don't think he's a troll, just a jerk who constantly patronizes people for having a differing opinion.

Look at his history. He almost always starts his posts with some form of "I know you're too stupid to comprehend this, but..."

 

[soundahfekz]

I don't think he's a troll, just a jerk who constantly patronizes people for having a differing opinion.

You see all those quotes right above you? I can understand where you might think that, but there was literally an entire page of people explaining how flawed his perspective was, and he continued to be extremely disingenuous with his silly rebuttal.

 

[KodMoS]

1/10

You're clearly trolling at this point

Let's check your reading comprehension, okay?

How can a police officer correct a witness on what he or she heard?

It's not about what she heard, it's WHO she heard. Did she see WHO cried for help? NO.

You can't make the jump to questioning who she heard without stopping at the police manipulation. There are contrasting witness accounts in cases all the time. Proper procedure is to document them and submit them where applicable.

You keep implying that she heard Trayvon crying, when she cannot identify who actually cried.

I know what the proper procedure is, I'm only debating why they may have corrected the witnesses.

Yeah, next time do a better job reading.

 

[Dead Man]

Let's check your reading comprehension, okay?










Yeah, next time do a better job reading.

I think I get your argument (That the witness could not be sure of what they thought they heard), but it is not the job of a person taking a statement to 'correct' it. The statement is the persons statement, not the corrected, sanitised, fact checked position of the person after careful consideration. Well, it could be that, but it doesn't have to be.

 

[commedieu]

Let's check your reading comprehension, okay?










Yeah, next time do a better job reading.

wow.

 

[soundahfekz]

Let's check your reading comprehension, okay?










Yeah, next time do a better job reading.

OK Kharvey.

 

[Onemic]

OK Kharvey.

It was just as I thought

 

[HurricaneJesus]

What would be the point of a witness statement if the cop is just going to go "Actually, ma'am/sir that isn't how it went down." ? Why ask for the witness statement if you aren't going to accept it for what it is? Otherwise it is just the first witness statement repeated over again. What if the order the witnesses were interviewed was reversed? Would the other statement have then been "corrected"?

 

[J.ceaz]

Let's check your reading comprehension, okay?










Yeah, next time do a better job reading.

How you aren't already banned I don't know. What I do know is that a police officer saying "No you didn't hear THIS you heard this! is not police procedure when dealing with a crime scene.

Witnesses told ABC News they heard Zimmerman pronounce aloud to the breathless residents watching the violence unfold "it was self-defense," and place the gun on the ground.

But after the shooting, a source inside the police department told ABC News that a narcotics detective and not a homicide detective first approached Zimmerman. The detective pepppered Zimmerman with questions, the source said, rather than allow Zimmerman to tell his story. Questions can lead a witness, the source said.

Another officer corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help.

The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.

No In this case she would be a witness who would testify under oath that she believes she heard a teen yelling out. And would be grilled by the defense about how she wasn't an "eye" witness. Ultimately this doesn't even address the initial injustice that spawned this entire controversy, which is that Zimmerman should have been arrested if not the day of the shooting then within the week of the shooting considering the amount of evidence contradicting his story. Bottom line is that we have an armed and paranoid man following and chasing down an innocent and unarmed man resulting in the unarmed mans death. If that doesn't warrant an arrest and investigation then murder is essentially legal in florida as long as you initially claim self defense and don't let your current location become public knowledge.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T2_SX2GlfEW

That's the origin of my quote.

 

[KodMoS]

I don't think you know what you are talking about. An eyewitness account is subjective. They could say that they believe Zimmerman transformed into a miniature Godzilla, and that is their eyewitness testimony. They say what they BELIEVE they see/hear, and that is why eyewitness testimony is faulty.

However, there is no CORRECTING witnesses. A police officer simply cannot alter or attempt to influence eyewitness testimony. Nobody can. An officer while taking a statement may attempt to clarify, e.g. "Wait, sir, you said Godzilla, correct? Or did you mean Mothra?" in order to make sure they record the statement correctly.

If she said she heard Trayvon crying, that is her statement. The court proceedings will figure out whether she can truly identify who was crying. Until then, anything else is conjecture.

Yet another one who's not paying attention.

Can an eye-witness testimony be faulty?


Do I know that eye-witnesses cannot be trustworthy?

Look at what I said earlier.

you should know that the woman's testimony is still considered evidence, especially if the eyewitnesses is proved to be untrustworthy

Yes, the parts in bold from your post are irrelevant.


They cannot influence other Witness testimonies or alter them in anyway? OF COURSE!

Just because a police correct a woman, that doesn't mean he tried to alter her statement.

“The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.”

She did not see the event, and that's why he corrected her.

 

[Professor Beef]

There's now a Defense Force for officers correcting witnesses.

Why am I not shocked.

 

[Sanjuro]

How you aren't already banned I don't know. What I do know is that a police officer saying "No you didn't hear THIS you heard this! is not police procedure when dealing with a crime scene.

That is a different subject. The point is unless there is a witness who visually saw him crying, that witness's claim is meaningless.

 

[ChocolateCupcakes]

Damn, this thread is just a train wreck.

 

[soundahfekz]

That is a different subject. The point is unless there is a witness who visually saw him crying, that witness's claim is meaningless.

The point is its not up to Sanjuro Tsubaki, Kharvey's alt, or the police to determine what's meaningless. Why argue over stupid shit that doesn't matter when clearly proper procedure is to take down ALL witness accounts and when/if the case goes to court, and vet the witnesses at that point through testimony.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I honestly am not seeing what's so difficult to grasp about this. Anything else is IRRELEVANT. The accuracy of the witness' account matters not. The manipulation of witness DOES point blank period.

 

[Sanjuro]

The point is its not up to Sanjuro Tsubaki, Kharvey's alt, or the police to determine what's meaningless. Why argue over stupid shit that doesn't matter when clearly proper procedure is to take down ALL witness accounts and when/if the case goes to court, and vet the witnesses at that point through testimony.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I honestly am not seeing what's so difficult to grasp about this. Anything else is IRRELEVANT. The accuracy of the witness matters not. The manipulation of witness does point blank period.

lookslikewehaveabadass.jpg

When did I say it's up to me? It's going to be meaningless in any court. The defense is just going to blast right through that.

 

[VistraNorrez]

KodMoS do you believe it's okay for a Police Officer to correct a witness?

 

[soundahfekz]

lookslikewehaveabadass.jpg

When did I say it's up to me? It's going to be meaningless in any court. The defense is just going to blast right through that.

You clearly didn't understand who's point you were clarifying, or what their original argument was. It's OK though. You aren't the first person who hasn't bothered to read thoroughly before interjecting

 

[Sanjuro]

You clearly didn't understand who's point you were clarifying, or what their original argument was. It's OK though. You aren't the first person who hasn't bothered to read thoroughly before interjecting

Who are you to correct a witness?

 

[KodMoS]

How you aren't already banned I don't know. What I do know is that a police officer saying "No you didn't hear THIS you heard this! is not police procedure when dealing with a crime scene.

No.

An eye-witness confirmed Zimmerman was the one crying for help. He may have corrected her because SHE did not see the actual event. Apparently, there is nothing wrong with what he did.

That's the point. He did not alter or change anything in the report, he just corrected her when she said Trayvon cried for help.

 

[soundahfekz]

Who are you to correct a witness?

OH MY GOD



LOL



I'm out for a bit until these drive by posters with no fucking clue about what they're talking about find a new interest

 

[Htown]

Just because a police correct a woman, that doesn't mean he tried to alter her statement.

Just because a police correct a woman, that doesn't mean he tried to alter her statement.

Just because a police correct a woman, that doesn't mean he tried to alter her statement.

Just because a police CORRECT a woman, that doesn't mean he tried to ALTER her statement.

There is not a facepalm big enough.

No, not even the giant composite one with a bunch of facepalming characters that join together like voltron to form the Picard facepalm.

 

[J.ceaz]

lookslikewehaveabadass.jpg

When did I say it's up to me? It's going to be meaningless in any court. The defense is just going to blast right through that.

The point is that Zimmerman still hasn't been arrested. The police department can't and shouldn't be left to make decisions like what will get through court, that's for a court to decide! All the police need to arrest someone is probable cause and, we believe bullet from your gun in a persons chest with no "eye" witnesses is probable cause.
that's pretty much what this argument is about.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

Who are you to correct a witness?

???

 

[Mortrialus]

lookslikewehaveabadass.jpg

When did I say it's up to me? It's going to be meaningless in any court. The defense is just going to blast right through that.

Lets just say the one eyewitness was intoxicated, or a friend of Zimmerman with a vested interest in protecting him or any other issue that would drastically hurt the credibility of the testimony. If that were to happen, they would have basically destroyed all of the other testimonies because they manipulated them. By correcting the witnesses who heard the event with information from other witnesses they've literally destroyed the ability to trust any information about the scene of the crime that has been handled by the police.

If they were correcting the other witnesses, what is to say they didn't correct the eyewitness's testimony based on Zimmerman's testimony of the events? At this point you don't know and you probably never will thanks to the failure to follow police procedure. Heck they peppered Zimmerman with questions, making his testimony even more suspect.

Who are you to correct a witness?

Are you fucking serious?

 

[commedieu]

Who are you to correct a witness?

Sanjuro,

Kodmos is saying that when a police officer corrects the facts of your witness testimony, that they(the police) aren't altering your witness testimony.

 

[Dude Abides]

Er... from the second link:

Russell says that the first thing civilians would think is to use the cell phone to identify the victim. However, "in most states there are laws against that. You have to remember that at least the way that we first got the story reported, that Trayvon was actually the suspect," Russell said. "If the police were to pick up that telephone and go into that telephone and find incriminating evidence against him, then they would say that that was not a good search."

I just want to point out how utterly stupid and ridiculous this is. The kid was dead when the police got his phone. The police have no reason to be worried about the 4th Amendment rights of a suspect who is dead.

Still not as stupid and ridiculous as KodMos's attempt to say that telling a witness what she heard to make it conform to what another witness said he heard is not altering that first witness's statement.

 

[entremet]

After KHarvey stopped posting as much I was wondering when a new challenger would appear.

 

[Sanjuro]

Sanjuro,

Kodmos is saying that when a police officer corrects the facts of your witness testimony, that they(the police) aren't altering your witness testimony.

He is partially correct, it's all really dependent on the witnesses actual statement. The officer can correct you with possible updated information. The response should be "I don't know about that officer, all I can tell you is what I heard."

A witness shouldn't be altering their statement with information from a remote viewpoint.

Are you fucking serious?

Yes, that was a serious joke.

 

[KodMoS]

There is not a facepalm big enough.

No, not even the giant composite one with a bunch of facepalming characters that join together like voltron to form the Picard facepalm.

lol - Now this one is funny.

Did the police alter the statement she gave to the police? No.The police officer only corrected her when she said it was Trayvon.

Again, this doesn't mean the officer altered her statement she gave to the police.

 

[jaxword]

It's a good idea to check post histories before responding to someone obviously trying to be a smug contrarian troll.

Seriously, the guy spent a billion posts defending hatred for gays, you really think he's going to change his opinion on rightwing authoritarianism and cops?

 

[Mortrialus]

He is partially correct, it's all really dependent on the witnesses actual statement. The officer can correct you with possible updated information. The response should be "I don't know about that officer, all I can tell you is what I heard."

A witness shouldn't be altering their statement with information from a remote viewpoint.




Yes, that was a serious joke.

The witness reported that she heard what sounded like a child or a teenager crying in pain or for help that was silenced by a gun shot. When the witness gave her testimony to the police, they told her that what she heard was Zimmerman crying for help and put down her testimony as her identifying Zimmerman crying for help when that is not her testimony. In fact, she thinks it was Martin. These are the events we are talking about. That is what we have a problem with.

That is not okay.

 

[commedieu]

The witness reported that she heard what sounded like a child or a teenager crying in pain or for help that was silenced by a gun shot. When the witness gave her testimony to the police, they told her that what she heard was Zimmerman crying for help and put down her testimony as her identifying Zimmerman crying for help when that is not her testimony. In fact, she thinks it was Martin. These are the events we are talking about. That is what we have a problem with.

That is not okay.

Who are you to correct a witness?

 

[slidewinder]

lol - Now this one is funny.

Did the police alter the statement she gave to the police? No.The police officer only corrected her when she said it was Trayvon.

Again, this doesn't mean the officer altered her statement she gave to the police.

It was her "corrected" statement that was the one that was taken by the police, and officially mentioned as part of their reasoning for not arresting Zimmerman. It wasn't until days later, when she came forward and said that she had been corrected by the officer, and that she wanted to RETRACT that "corrected" statement that it was even known that this had happened.

You should really give a simple yes or no to this, too:

KodMoS do you believe it's okay for a Police Officer to correct a witness?

Oh, and finally: I think it's possible that you began this whole thing with a genuine but pulled-from-your-ass belief that it was commonplace and normal for an officer to correct witnesses like this, that you began to realize otherwise when people pointed out that it is absolutely not, and that you're now arguing mostly out of a desire to not have to admit that you were wrong. Your thoughts?

 

[Sanjuro]

The witness reported that she heard what sounded like a child or a teenager crying in pain or for help that was silenced by a gun shot. When the witness gave her testimony to the police, they told her that what she heard was Zimmerman crying for help and put down her testimony as her identifying Zimmerman crying for help when that is not her testimony. In fact, she thinks it was Martin. These are the events we are talking about. That is what we have a problem with.

That is not okay.

When did I say it was okay for the officer to put that down as her testimony?

If she didn't see anything, then it's just her opinion.

 

[KodMoS]

Sanjuro,

Kodmos is saying that when a police officer corrects the facts of your witness testimony, that they(the police) aren't altering your witness testimony.

Wow, you guys like to jump to conclusions.

I never said that. I said just because he corrected her, that doesn't mean he altered her statement.

This statement is the what they wrote down from their investigation.

 

[Dude Abides]

Lol. hai guys I just claimed the police didn't alter what they wrote down after they wrote it down. This is a very important thing that really gets to the truth of what happened.

 

[Mortrialus]

When did I say it was okay for the officer to put that down as her testimony?

He is partially correct, it's all really dependent on the witnesses actual statement. The officer can correct you with possible updated information. The response should be "I don't know about that officer, all I can tell you is what I heard."
A witness shouldn't be altering their statement with information from a remote viewpoint.

Then why are you arguing with us? This is what we are saying is wrong. That is what you have been defending. If you don't think it is okay, stop fucking defending it.

If she didn't see anything, then it's just her opinion.

This is true. It sure as hell isn't positively identifying Zimmerman crying for help.

 

[KodMoS]

It was her "corrected" statement that was the one that was taken by the police, and officially mentioned as part of their reasoning for not arresting Zimmerman. It wasn't until days later, when she came forward and said that she had been corrected by the officer, and that she wanted to RETRACT that "corrected" statement that it was even known that this had happened.

You should really give a simple yes or no to this, too:


Oh, and finally: I think it's possible that you began this whole thing with a genuine but pulled-from-your-ass belief that it was commonplace and normal for an officer to correct witnesses like this, that you began to realize otherwise when people pointed out that it is absolutely not, and that you're now arguing mostly out of a desire to not have to admit that you were wrong. Your thoughts?

Yes, you can correct a Witness. However, like I said before, that doesn't mean the police changed what she told the police. More than likely, they wrote down what she initially told them.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Wow, you guys like to jump to conclusions.

I never said that. I said just because he corrected her, that doesn't mean he altered her statement.

This statement is the what they wrote down from their investigation.

wut?

 

[Mortrialus]

More than likely, they wrote down what she initially told them.

They didn't.

 

[KodMoS]

wut?

A statement is what she gave to the police. That statement doesn't changed because the police corrected her.

It's pretty simple.

 

[Particle Physicist]

A statement is what she gave to the police. That statement doesn't changed because the police corrected her.

It's pretty simple.

She said it sounded like a kid crying. the Police corrected her and told her she heard a grown man crying. Clearly, they didn't change a thing!

Wait, are you saying that he didn't change the recorded statement? Of course not, he changed it before it was recorded. Is this, like, a retarded semantics argument?

 

[Mortrialus]

She said it sounded like a kid crying. the Police corrected her and told her she heard a grown man crying. Clearly, they didn't change a thing!

The police told her she heard a grown man she recognized and identified as Zimmerman no less.

 

[Sanjuro]

Then why are you arguing with us? This is what we are saying is wrong. That is what you have been defending. If you don't think it is okay, stop fucking defending it.
This is true. It sure as hell isn't positively identifying Zimmerman crying for help.

You seem very hostile. Not sure why.

I didn't say anything about her "positively identifying Zimmerman". Not sure why you would even mention that after one of my posts.

 

[commedieu]

Yes, you can correct a Witness. However, like I said before, that doesn't mean the police changed what she told the police. More than likely, they wrote down what she initially told them.

The witness told the police it was Trayvon screaming.

They corrected her and told her it was zimmerman, and with that information, they let zimmerman go. That information, is the witness testimony. That Zimmerman was screaming for help & had to defend himself.

 

[KodMoS]

She said it sounded like a kid crying. the Police corrected her and told her she heard a grown man crying. Clearly, they didn't change a thing!

No.

She said the teenage boy was crying, the police corrected her by saying it was Zimmerman. This information may have been based on what an eye-witness told him.

The police corrected her on WHO she heard crying, not WHAT she heard crying. Technically, that's not wrong because she did not see the actual event.

 

[Particle Physicist]

No.

She said the teenage boy was crying, the police corrected her by saying it was Zimmerman. This information may have been based on what an eye-witness told him.

The police corrected her on WHO she heard crying, not WHAT she heard crying. Technically, that's not wrong because she did not see the actual event.

wut?

 

[Supermanisdead]

No.

She said the teenage boy was crying, the police corrected her by saying it was Zimmerman. This information may have been based on what an eye-witness told him.

The police corrected her on WHO she heard crying, not WHAT she heard crying. Technically, that's not wrong because she did not see the actual event.

Lol just stop ok.

 

[commedieu]

No.

She said the teenage boy was crying, the police corrected her by saying it was Zimmerman. This information may have been based on what an eye-witness told him.

The police corrected her on WHO she heard crying, not WHAT she heard crying. Technically, that's not wrong because she did not see the actual event.

Her testimony isn't irrelevant because she didn't see the event KodMos.

The police don't ignore what people hear at a crime scene. As it was said earlier, its all gathered and when it goes to court witnesses are examined to see if they are actually telling the truth or not.

This is why police don't correct witnesses on what they witnessed.

As the police didn't witness anything.